Opinion: No Objections to Nano?

While biotechnology has met with mixed public reactions, to date nanotechnology seems to invoke much less public concern.

By Susanna Priest | February 3, 2012

Metal oxide nano particles Flickr, BASF - The Chemical Company

Metal oxide nano particlesFLICKR, BASF - THE CHEMICAL COMPANY

Some forms of biotechnology have become notoriously controversial. Genetic modification of crops, for example, altered the food supply in ways some consumers found troublesome, either because of anticipated consequences, a lack of tangible benefit, lack of opportunity to participate in the decision-making, or simply a sense of inherent “unnaturalness.” Stem cell research has raised similar uneasiness, albeit for entirely different reasons, largely moral beliefs that equate it with the destruction of human embryos. So far, though, public perception of nanotechnology does not seem to be headed in the same direction. Sure, there are appeals for regulation and isolated protests, but it doesn’t seem as though there is really as much in the way of concerted will behind them. While some might be waiting for the other shoe to drop—I’ve been told many times that public concerns about nano are bound to emerge “just as soon as people understand what this is all about”—events so far suggest it may be a long wait.

Despite emerging evidence of potential toxicity to human health and the environment from some forms of nanotechnology under some circumstances, not much popular alarm has arisen. Great uncertainty remains over which products and under what circumstances we should be concerned, but of course this hasn’t stopped public reaction in the past. Several potential “triggering events” of the sort we social scientists might have expected would unleash underlying fears have already happened. In 2006, reports emerged of serious respiratory problems among German consumers using a household cleaning product called “Magic Nano,” and evidence published in 2009 indicated severe lung disease and even deaths among a small group of Chinese factory workers exposed to nanoparticles (and many other chemicals, as it turns out). In both cases, the link between nanotechnology and disease is far from clear. “Magic Nano” may not even have contained nanoparticles; the label was apparently chosen in an attempt to hype the product, much like the name “iPod nano.” Clearly, the marketers involved believed the word “nano” is attractive to consumers, rather than a source of concern for them.

To me, as a social scientist who studies risk communication, perception and reality are indeed the same thing, and so the interesting question is why, when uncertainty about risks has certainly not stopped public opinion from turning sour in the past, should nano be getting the benefit of the doubt while so much of bio remains persistently controversial?

The answer may lie in the nature of our technoscientific culture. I recently published a multi-year panel study involving 76 citizens of South Carolina, representing various walks of life, which reinforced the notion that because most Americans like technology, they are generally willing to give nanotechnology a pass, at least for now, even though they don’t know much about it. About two-thirds of the panel held positive views, and the negative minority seemed to draw on negative expectations about technology more generally, rather than specific views about nanotechnology. Panelists’ views changed little over the 32 months of the study. The most common concerns, reasonably enough, centered on unexpected consequences and unanticipated side effects. Indeed, people seemed perfectly aware of the uncertainties surrounding nano-associated risks, but this hardly appeared to induce fear.

To those of us who lived through the early years of the genetically modified (GM) food “wars,” which some tended to attribute to a lack of familiarity alongside low levels of trust, this is pretty interesting. Nano involves many of the same sorts of key actors (major corporations, government regulators, scientists, engineers, and consumer advocacy groups) and, if anything, even greater levels of scientific uncertainty. Yet there’s something quite different about what we call the “climate of public opinion” for nanotechnology as opposed to biotechnology, particularly GM. To be sure, some observers are invoking the so-called precautionary principle (the largely European idea that we should not adopt a technology until the evidence shows it does not cause harm), but even in such cases it usually seems that they are calling for precaution because they think this is generally the right way to manage any new technology, rather than because nanotechnology is particularly worrisome.

So what makes nano so different from bio? Simply put, manipulating DNA simply seems to challenge our underlying cultural ideas about how the world ought to be in ways that manipulating otherwise ordinary materials does not.

For those who want to communicate about risk in a responsible way with the so-called “lay” or non-specialist public, nano represents a novel challenge. Rather than being an “amplified” risk, by which I mean one that the media and other social institutions have tended to highlight, nanotechnology may represent an “attenuated” risk, or one that these institutions have tended to ignore. If people are too fearful of a technology, they may lose out on its potential benefits, yet if too trusting, they may ignore important risks. But few among us really want to be the one yelling “Fire!” in a crowded world. After all, we’re still not even sure there’s a problem. Are we?

Indeed, just last month (January 25), the National Research Council issued a report calling for a coordinated research plan to investigate nanotechnology's poorly understood risks to both health and environment, lest its beneficial promise for society ultimately go unrealized.

Susanna Priest (susannapriest@yahoo.com) is the author of Nanotechnology and the Public: Risk Perception and Risk Communication (Taylor and Francis, 2012), as well as a November 2011 article in Risk Analysis (Volume 31, Issue 11, pp. 1718-1733) on “Envisioning Emerging Technologies,” which reports on the panel study results as part of a special issue. She also edits the academic journal Science Communication.

Add a Comment

Comments

That's not my experience. I'm finding exactly the same people are wailing about Nano as GMOs, using the same denier strategies of fear, doubt, and cherry-picking. Here's one example: Is Nanotechnology the New GMO?http://www.theatlantic.com/hea...

Marion Nestle is a popular food policy writer with a large following. She's yelling "Fire". I think the only reason it's not congealing the same is because there's no single bogey-man like Monsanto in this case.

But you are also aware of the bombing and the bomb plot right? These kinds of things also happened for GMOs.

That's not my experience. I'm finding exactly the same people are wailing about Nano as GMOs, using the same denier strategies of fear, doubt, and cherry-picking. Here's one example: Is Nanotechnology the New GMO?http://www.theatlantic.com/hea...

Marion Nestle is a popular food policy writer with a large following. She's yelling "Fire". I think the only reason it's not congealing the same is because there's no single bogey-man like Monsanto in this case.

But you are also aware of the bombing and the bomb plot right? These kinds of things also happened for GMOs.

Really good questions Susanna.Our early polling results suggests some concern amongst Australian consumers of sunscreen. http://nano.foe.org.au/polling...Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the 1300 people polled want nano-ingredients labelled and tested.But as you highlight, it's still early days.

Really good questions Susanna.Our early polling results suggests some concern amongst Australian consumers of sunscreen. http://nano.foe.org.au/polling...Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the 1300 people polled want nano-ingredients labelled and tested.But as you highlight, it's still early days.

I find it a relief that society is not reacting to something they are not educated in with Â emotional responses, the way they did for GM foods, vaccines and stem cells. Still, i do think that you over state it to say that there is evidence of healthÂ hazards. This is true if it were not being handled by scientists, and is true for traditional materials as well. By the time the products reach consumers they are safe. An example of a more common material is silica. The processing of silica can lead to certain cancers, but embedded in a tire it is benign. the same is true for all nanomaterials i am aware of.

Looking at the general health of people in USA that have been at the forefront of GMO technology makes me wonder if people are blind to the change on health in this nation?

In England we never got to the real reason for BSE which did involve GMO milk or rather GMO for the cows that went mad. Just a multi million pound cover up.

In animals fed GMO here in France, England and Europe we have new mysterious illnesses for animals. Eg bleeding disorders.

Also hospital has a shift in health issues which may be GMO related. Organs being damaged like never before including the brain and heart.

Returning to nanotechnology, the public is largely unaware of this technology just as GMO producers seem unaware that GMO food is SUBSTANTIALLY different to genetic food of the past. Watching a TV programme on nanotechnology I got the feeling that nobody has much of an idea of how it will develop.

Mixing animal genes with plant genes for example shows a FUNDAMENTAL lack of even genes by those experimenting in FRANKENSTEIN technologies.

As to vaccines, yes they work but how do you explain SIDS and autism et al without lies?

I think you are really understating the resistance to this. I have seen it from all the same sources that resist GMOs. And you have to know about the bombing and attempted bombings of the nanotech researchers.Â

And I think denying that those forces exist doesn't serve us well. If they act the same was as they did before it could really hinder research.

One of the biggest outcries against nanotechnology was in the popular science fiction (??) novel Prey by Michael Crichton.Â In that novel, a "swarm" of nanobots got loose from the lab and, after rapidly evolving,Â transformed the world into gray goo.Â I just think the nanotechnology protest has a less specific focus than genetically modified foods becauseÂ "nano" in technology can refer toÂ cosmetic formulations of makeup as well as nanotechnological robots designed to travel through the bloodstream.Â Thus the term is desensitized through overuse.Â But protests will be there as soon as a viable nanobot medical technology emerges.

The study found that titania, listed on sunscreen labels as titanium oxide, induced cultured mice brain cells to manufacture chemicals that are protective in the short term but can cause damage over time. It is not known whether the same holds true for humans, but recently eight lobby groups, including Friends of the Earth and The International Center for Technology Assessment, petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about safety risks of nanoparticles in cosmetics and personal care products.Â Scientists say the tiny particles may have different chemical compositions than their larger derivatives, and becauseÂ nanoparticles are so small they are more easily absorbed into the skin, raising potential risks.

It will still be years before the safety of nanotechnology can be proven, however, the particles are already being put into use in sunscreens, toothpaste, makeup and other products.Â

No objection, because accordingto Revelation the Science is the seventh lighted torch, and it shall drive theman to all the truth.

Proverbs 1.22 - *Howlong will you enjoy pouring scorn on knowledge? Will you never learn?*

The only real problem forthe science is to understand the soul reactivity.

Based on Adam mtDNA heritage, observed only at the puberty in seminal liquid,I have developed a new bio-communication theory, *Mitochondrial Adam DNA datatransmission theory - ISBN978-606-92107-1-0*:

Abstract: Brainand soul storming - Thenecessary and sufficient processes to a well function of the human body aremeticulous arranged by specific organizational cells, so called processbiomanagers, using interconditioned procedures, transmitted through three waysof communication: chemical or â€œprotein channelâ€쳌, electrical or â€œion channelâ€쳌and mitochondrial or â€œEMF wireless channelâ€쳌. The third type is out of thevisible and measurable spectrum and raises a new challenge to the scientists.For this type of bio communication we bring a new theoretical hypothesis, basedon the managerial multidisciplinary analysis of a cybernetic model proposed byus, by simulating the human body function with the virtual computerized systembased on the management of its total knowledge and its perfect quality way offunction. The main bricks used for this virtual construction are: the brain, asmain bioprocessor, and Eve mtDNA and Adam mtDNA, as bio-antennas. This assemblyof the total knowledge, build with â€œbrain reasoning, biological feeling, andunlimited soul feelingâ€쳌, is called by us â€œmain decision triangle, IQ-EQ-CQâ€쳌.The main principle of the management of the total knowledge imposes us to notneglect any information produced by man during the time, even if it seemscreasy at the beginning. Because in the natural fertilisation the spermatozoidsare naturally equipped with the paternal mtDNA (a veritable main bio-GPS), weconsider that the paternal mitochondria DNA have a very important role in theevolution of the human being life quality and we have developed a newhypothesis, â€œAdam mtDNA theoryâ€쳌, in addition to â€œEve mtDNA theoryâ€쳌.

Perhaps, if the non-science-literate feel much less fear of nanotechnology it may be because they never heard of a nano-robot morphing (via genetic mutation) into something new and unexpected and deleterious.

It is important, in bio-engineering of new things, to try to see the potential risks that could arise from a given new thing.Â To expect zero risk would be tantamount to shutting down all research (and, engineering-wise, all development).

Some kinds of unpleasant surprises are scary.Â To the extent we are duly diligent in foreseeing likely risks and avoiding them as much as possible, research and development will go on, or humankind will not... go on for very much longer, that is.

Blindered dismissiveness of opposition to GE/GMO/GM productions (and cavalierly lumping this together with opposition to nanotechnology as from merely `research-hindering sources' may be disingenuous or honestly not informed.

Too many scientists have been `disciplined' for truthful reporting on the deleterious effects of GM crops. As a consequence there is a very unrealistic view of the safety issue.

Reviewing the work and obstacles and threats that were experienced respectively by these persons and many, many more to bring scientific data to light about GMO dangers obliges any honest person to reconsider the pro-GMO stance.

"A feature of GE culture has been a refusal to accept dissent and unfavourable research. A massive campaign managed the prestigious scientific journal Nature to disavow in a novel ( and somewhat vague way,) a paper on Mexican corn that it had published â€“ the first time in the 133 year history of the journal. This campaign has also vigorously attacked the professionalism of the University of California at Berkeley scientists who conducted the original study. Scientists who express divergent opinions or publish research results that differ from the GE programs are routinely subject to attack on their professional reputation."

To quote from a recent The Scientist article, Opinion: The Dark Side of Science News & Opinion, November 16, 2011"scientists are responsible for both what they intend to achieve and that which is readily foreseeable, as we all are. There is nothing inherent in becoming a scientist that removes this burden of responsibility."

I find it a relief that society is not reacting to something they are not educated in with Â emotional responses, the way they did for GM foods, vaccines and stem cells. Still, i do think that you over state it to say that there is evidence of healthÂ hazards. This is true if it were not being handled by scientists, and is true for traditional materials as well. By the time the products reach consumers they are safe. An example of a more common material is silica. The processing of silica can lead to certain cancers, but embedded in a tire it is benign. the same is true for all nanomaterials i am aware of.

Looking at the general health of people in USA that have been at the forefront of GMO technology makes me wonder if people are blind to the change on health in this nation?

In England we never got to the real reason for BSE which did involve GMO milk or rather GMO for the cows that went mad. Just a multi million pound cover up.

In animals fed GMO here in France, England and Europe we have new mysterious illnesses for animals. Eg bleeding disorders.

Also hospital has a shift in health issues which may be GMO related. Organs being damaged like never before including the brain and heart.

Returning to nanotechnology, the public is largely unaware of this technology just as GMO producers seem unaware that GMO food is SUBSTANTIALLY different to genetic food of the past. Watching a TV programme on nanotechnology I got the feeling that nobody has much of an idea of how it will develop.

Mixing animal genes with plant genes for example shows a FUNDAMENTAL lack of even genes by those experimenting in FRANKENSTEIN technologies.

As to vaccines, yes they work but how do you explain SIDS and autism et al without lies?

I think you are really understating the resistance to this. I have seen it from all the same sources that resist GMOs. And you have to know about the bombing and attempted bombings of the nanotech researchers.Â

And I think denying that those forces exist doesn't serve us well. If they act the same was as they did before it could really hinder research.

One of the biggest outcries against nanotechnology was in the popular science fiction (??) novel Prey by Michael Crichton.Â In that novel, a "swarm" of nanobots got loose from the lab and, after rapidly evolving,Â transformed the world into gray goo.Â I just think the nanotechnology protest has a less specific focus than genetically modified foods becauseÂ "nano" in technology can refer toÂ cosmetic formulations of makeup as well as nanotechnological robots designed to travel through the bloodstream.Â Thus the term is desensitized through overuse.Â But protests will be there as soon as a viable nanobot medical technology emerges.

The study found that titania, listed on sunscreen labels as titanium oxide, induced cultured mice brain cells to manufacture chemicals that are protective in the short term but can cause damage over time. It is not known whether the same holds true for humans, but recently eight lobby groups, including Friends of the Earth and The International Center for Technology Assessment, petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about safety risks of nanoparticles in cosmetics and personal care products.Â Scientists say the tiny particles may have different chemical compositions than their larger derivatives, and becauseÂ nanoparticles are so small they are more easily absorbed into the skin, raising potential risks.

It will still be years before the safety of nanotechnology can be proven, however, the particles are already being put into use in sunscreens, toothpaste, makeup and other products.Â

No objection, because accordingto Revelation the Science is the seventh lighted torch, and it shall drive theman to all the truth.

Proverbs 1.22 - *Howlong will you enjoy pouring scorn on knowledge? Will you never learn?*

The only real problem forthe science is to understand the soul reactivity.

Based on Adam mtDNA heritage, observed only at the puberty in seminal liquid,I have developed a new bio-communication theory, *Mitochondrial Adam DNA datatransmission theory - ISBN978-606-92107-1-0*:

Abstract: Brainand soul storming - Thenecessary and sufficient processes to a well function of the human body aremeticulous arranged by specific organizational cells, so called processbiomanagers, using interconditioned procedures, transmitted through three waysof communication: chemical or â€œprotein channelâ€쳌, electrical or â€œion channelâ€쳌and mitochondrial or â€œEMF wireless channelâ€쳌. The third type is out of thevisible and measurable spectrum and raises a new challenge to the scientists.For this type of bio communication we bring a new theoretical hypothesis, basedon the managerial multidisciplinary analysis of a cybernetic model proposed byus, by simulating the human body function with the virtual computerized systembased on the management of its total knowledge and its perfect quality way offunction. The main bricks used for this virtual construction are: the brain, asmain bioprocessor, and Eve mtDNA and Adam mtDNA, as bio-antennas. This assemblyof the total knowledge, build with â€œbrain reasoning, biological feeling, andunlimited soul feelingâ€쳌, is called by us â€œmain decision triangle, IQ-EQ-CQâ€쳌.The main principle of the management of the total knowledge imposes us to notneglect any information produced by man during the time, even if it seemscreasy at the beginning. Because in the natural fertilisation the spermatozoidsare naturally equipped with the paternal mtDNA (a veritable main bio-GPS), weconsider that the paternal mitochondria DNA have a very important role in theevolution of the human being life quality and we have developed a newhypothesis, â€œAdam mtDNA theoryâ€쳌, in addition to â€œEve mtDNA theoryâ€쳌.

Perhaps, if the non-science-literate feel much less fear of nanotechnology it may be because they never heard of a nano-robot morphing (via genetic mutation) into something new and unexpected and deleterious.

It is important, in bio-engineering of new things, to try to see the potential risks that could arise from a given new thing.Â To expect zero risk would be tantamount to shutting down all research (and, engineering-wise, all development).

Some kinds of unpleasant surprises are scary.Â To the extent we are duly diligent in foreseeing likely risks and avoiding them as much as possible, research and development will go on, or humankind will not... go on for very much longer, that is.

Blindered dismissiveness of opposition to GE/GMO/GM productions (and cavalierly lumping this together with opposition to nanotechnology as from merely `research-hindering sources' may be disingenuous or honestly not informed.

Too many scientists have been `disciplined' for truthful reporting on the deleterious effects of GM crops. As a consequence there is a very unrealistic view of the safety issue.

Reviewing the work and obstacles and threats that were experienced respectively by these persons and many, many more to bring scientific data to light about GMO dangers obliges any honest person to reconsider the pro-GMO stance.

"A feature of GE culture has been a refusal to accept dissent and unfavourable research. A massive campaign managed the prestigious scientific journal Nature to disavow in a novel ( and somewhat vague way,) a paper on Mexican corn that it had published â€“ the first time in the 133 year history of the journal. This campaign has also vigorously attacked the professionalism of the University of California at Berkeley scientists who conducted the original study. Scientists who express divergent opinions or publish research results that differ from the GE programs are routinely subject to attack on their professional reputation."

To quote from a recent The Scientist article, Opinion: The Dark Side of Science News & Opinion, November 16, 2011"scientists are responsible for both what they intend to achieve and that which is readily foreseeable, as we all are. There is nothing inherent in becoming a scientist that removes this burden of responsibility."

Most people still think it's a Robin Williams line: nano-nano.Â But any material that has a cell wall intrusion potentiality when utilized in apparently neutral products like make-up, etc. needs to be studied seriously and reserved from mass implementationÂ to avoid anyÂ Thalidomide type "unexpected consequences".

What is most amusing about this whole spectacle of "nano" is that Drexler's thesis is pure science fiction. He's made a living at it, but he's either conning his public or simply delusional and uninterested in learning actual physics and chemistry. I strongly suspect that it is pretty hard for him not to have figured out by now that he made stuff up that will never happen. But, it must be hard to let go of his income by coming out and saying, "I was wrong." It's basic things that he violates with grand flourishes.

Of course he has "The Kurzweil" in his corner now from the singularity religion, and a wiki page with a critique discussion section highly slanted toward's Drexlerite's fantasy notions of physics and chemistry. Anyone with a decent background reading the actual exchange between Drexler and Smalley finds it blindingly obvious that Smalley understood what he was talking about and Drexler did a fan-dance. It is also simply a lie for the wiki page to claim Drexler that he "had trouble" getting Smalley to respond. It was quite the reverse. And Smalley, having now died, can't say anything more. But if a person is intelligent and honest they can read Smalley and see that he doesn't have to say more.

No, I'm not going to engage in a religious war on Wikipedia over it. That's a problem for Jimmy Wales to deal with. Religious pages are not accurate and it's a problem.

Yes, Feynman (like Smalley, safely dead now) gave a lecture where he proposed this as a thought experiment long ago. But that's it. That's all it was, and he didn't carry on. He let sci-fi authors write the fantasies.

All that is why nano is an investment category, and a bucket for catching whatever people want to put in it. Susanna has hit that one correctly in this article. There is nothing specifically "nano" that emerged from "nanotechnology". There are just things in process or chemistry that was named that after the fact because it was cool or it helped get funding.

The public won't see gray goo or anything like it because it's impossible. And, by the way, Drexler didn't even invent that. It was in a sci-fi story published in the 1960's. I remember it well, because I read it as a kid back then.Â Wrong and not even original. All in all a rather astonishing testament to the power of hope, delusion and hype. Sincerity through delusion is catching.

I think the inherent difference here is that the public perception of biotechnology is that we really can't control the end product. Anything organic has a built in randomness to it and even more so when it has the ability to change itself through its own reproduction.

In nanotechnology there is a sense of control. Or a sense that anything bad that might happen can be traced back to someone making a mistake or not testing it enough - the same is true of technology in general. On the other hand that sense of randomness in biotechnology means that something bad could happen on its own.

Well, the mexican bomber group has posted a manifesto claiming they can be transformed into nano-cyborgs, a sadly misguided notion, since Drexler's ideas require physics of a universe other than this one. Haven't heard from them since.

Most people still think it's a Robin Williams line: nano-nano.Â But any material that has a cell wall intrusion potentiality when utilized in apparently neutral products like make-up, etc. needs to be studied seriously and reserved from mass implementationÂ to avoid anyÂ Thalidomide type "unexpected consequences".

What is most amusing about this whole spectacle of "nano" is that Drexler's thesis is pure science fiction. He's made a living at it, but he's either conning his public or simply delusional and uninterested in learning actual physics and chemistry. I strongly suspect that it is pretty hard for him not to have figured out by now that he made stuff up that will never happen. But, it must be hard to let go of his income by coming out and saying, "I was wrong." It's basic things that he violates with grand flourishes.

Of course he has "The Kurzweil" in his corner now from the singularity religion, and a wiki page with a critique discussion section highly slanted toward's Drexlerite's fantasy notions of physics and chemistry. Anyone with a decent background reading the actual exchange between Drexler and Smalley finds it blindingly obvious that Smalley understood what he was talking about and Drexler did a fan-dance. It is also simply a lie for the wiki page to claim Drexler that he "had trouble" getting Smalley to respond. It was quite the reverse. And Smalley, having now died, can't say anything more. But if a person is intelligent and honest they can read Smalley and see that he doesn't have to say more.

No, I'm not going to engage in a religious war on Wikipedia over it. That's a problem for Jimmy Wales to deal with. Religious pages are not accurate and it's a problem.

Yes, Feynman (like Smalley, safely dead now) gave a lecture where he proposed this as a thought experiment long ago. But that's it. That's all it was, and he didn't carry on. He let sci-fi authors write the fantasies.

All that is why nano is an investment category, and a bucket for catching whatever people want to put in it. Susanna has hit that one correctly in this article. There is nothing specifically "nano" that emerged from "nanotechnology". There are just things in process or chemistry that was named that after the fact because it was cool or it helped get funding.

The public won't see gray goo or anything like it because it's impossible. And, by the way, Drexler didn't even invent that. It was in a sci-fi story published in the 1960's. I remember it well, because I read it as a kid back then.Â Wrong and not even original. All in all a rather astonishing testament to the power of hope, delusion and hype. Sincerity through delusion is catching.

I think the inherent difference here is that the public perception of biotechnology is that we really can't control the end product. Anything organic has a built in randomness to it and even more so when it has the ability to change itself through its own reproduction.

In nanotechnology there is a sense of control. Or a sense that anything bad that might happen can be traced back to someone making a mistake or not testing it enough - the same is true of technology in general. On the other hand that sense of randomness in biotechnology means that something bad could happen on its own.

Well, the mexican bomber group has posted a manifesto claiming they can be transformed into nano-cyborgs, a sadly misguided notion, since Drexler's ideas require physics of a universe other than this one. Haven't heard from them since.